Law Society calls on Parliament for greater clarity on privacy injunctions

20 May 2011

The Law Society today argued that courts have no choice in granting injunctions given the UK's worthy commitment to Human Rights and is calling on Parliament to step in and provide clarity on this issue.

Responding to the publication of findings on super-injunctions by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson commented;

"What is absent from the debate is a frank assessment of how we have reached this status quo. To an extent, the courts have reacted to unhelpful attacks on the judiciary and an avalanche of media comment. Some of the media's reporting has been self-serving and partisan, in addition to a focus on celebrity and the personal lives of public figures. There is a need to distinguish between a public interest right to know and information of merely prurient interest to those focused on selling newspapers.

“We are dismayed at the extent to which reporting on privacy injunctions has involved criticism of the courts and the Judiciary who by the Government's own admission, are "filling a gap" left by Parliament. The need for debate on this issue is clear but that does not mean that the law or decisions of the Courts should be undermined or casually ignored. A number of recent commentators might usefully reflect on their behaviour.

"The Law Society continues to be a leading voice in calling for open justice, and we agree with the report that there should be a substantial test before a court would consider restricting freedom to know and report. We do, however, recognise that at times public interest and the balance of competing rights demand restrictions on reporting if justice is to be done.”

Lord Neuberger's Committee was formed in April 2010 in the light of growing public concerns about the use and effect of 'super-injunctions' as a result of growing media interest in the personal lives of public figures.

Desmond Hudson added; "Lord Neuberger's report marks a significant step in the dialogue for reform, and we will be looking closely at its implications on privacy and free speech, as well as its practicality in terms of time and cost.

"Defining where the public interest should lie in any given circumstances should be the key issue for Parliament to consider - and seek evidence on.

"There's a great deal of public confusion between injunctions made with anonymity orders and true 'super injunctions', the latter of which are, as the report recognises, few and far between. Everyone would benefit from greater clarity on this point in the press, as the distinction is significant.

"What is increasingly apparent is that the law on privacy as it stands is being undermined through the use of social media websites and Parliamentary privilege, leading to the lifting of anonymity orders, as we have seen over the last few days. There is undoubtedly a debate to be had over balancing the rights to privacy and free speech, but it is not right that the rule of law should be circumvented or broken in favour of the latter, and which avoids a debate altogether.”

Read the committee report findings.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to ePolitix.com. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the ePolitix.com service.

As such, ePolitix.com does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.